Jackson Free Press

Apparently while trying to explain away his problems* with the Civil Rights Act on ABC's Good Morning America, Rand Paul -- newly minted "tea-party" GOP candidate for Senate from the great state of Kentucky (shout-out to Texas for somehow convincing him to not live there) -- called President Obama "un-American" for his criticism of BP's handling of the Gulf Oil spill.

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

Putting aside for a moment the fact that BP stands for British Petroleum (meaning criticism of the company might better be labelled "un-English"), we're still left with the pressing question: "WTF?"

Or, as the late**, great John McEnroe would have put it: "You. Cannot. Be. Serious!"

Later in the interview, Mr. Paul equates the overreaction to the BP Oil Spill with the overreaction earlier in the year to a coal mine disaster that left two people dead in Kentucky.

"We had a mining accident that was very tragic. ... Then we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen," he said.

11 people died in the BP explosion, the aftermath is an environmental nightmare, it seems there's a history of shoddy safety on the part of the company... and Rand Paul is concerned that the administration might upset corpoate BP's poor wittle feewings as a business?

Not much surprises me from the GOP these days, but are you sh**ting me, Rand?

And there we have it folks -- the soul of the tea-party movement, from his lips to God's ears -- literally putting corporate profits ahead of people. (As long as the "people" are not the individual Objectivist egos in question.)

This is your movement, my tea-party friends.

Here is your leader.

(*Paul apparently believes that the Civil Rights Act is an unwelcome intrusion on businesses as it forces desegregation even in privately owned establishments that serve the public. **John McEnroe is not dead.)

Previous Commentsshow

Just had this comment come through the Contact Us form from Mark: comments: Your opinion blog entitled "Ross Perot + Dr. Evil = Rand Paul?" was my first introduction to JFP. Had Mr. Stauffer left out the unnecessary color commentary, I would have finished reading. Now, unfortunately, I'll go out of my way to avoid giving your site clicks and will avoid reading your paper. His writing reflects on the caliber of paper JFP wants to be...disappointing. If this upset you that much, Mark, I have a feeling we were going to part ways sooner rather than later. Toodles!

Todd Stauffer

May 21 2010

The EPA isn't quite buying the argument that Obama is being too hard on BP, according to ProPublica's report "EPA Officials Weighing Sanctions Against BP's US Operation". Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering whether to bar BP from receiving government contracts, a move that would ultimately cost the company billions in revenue and could end its drilling in federally controlled oil fields. Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company's executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways. That strategy may no longer work. Emphasis mine. Mr. Paul...are you sure BP doesn't deserve some harsh words from the President? At the very least, perhaps?

Todd Stauffer

May 21 2010

Meanwhile, while we're on the topic of Libertarianism, I guess this whole Rand Paul thing is *bringing it* out of some quality thinkers. Check this from Salon, entitled The Lesson of Rand Paul: Libertarianism is Juvenille: Libertarianism itself is what's stupid here, not just Paul. We should stop tip-toeing around this belief system like its adherents are the noble last remnants of a dying breed, still clinging to their ancient, proud ways. Er...snap? Actually, this piece makes a lot of sense, and it's probably high time someone said it: Ironically, the best way into this point comes from another brilliant libertarian, legal scholar Richard Epstein. Says Epstein, "To be against Title II in 1964 would be to be brain-dead to the underlying realities of how this world works." There’s the key -- "the underlying realities of how the world works." Because never, and I mean never, has there been capitalist enterprise that wasn't ultimately underwritten by the state. This is true at an obvious level that even most libertarians would concede (though maybe not some of the Austrian economists whom Rand Paul adores): for the system to work, you need some kind of bare bones apparatus for enforcing contracts and protecting property. My point, made repeated here on the site. Libertarianism -- at its extreme -- is a pipe dream. We need to mix a little reality in with "the crazy" and maybe we get some good ideas. It's a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this. In other words, don't confuse uptopian Randian Libertarianism (the stuff that the bookstore clerks all sniff about as if they were accomplished architects themselves) when it puts itself in direct opposition to *actual reality*. And yet let me say this: Constantly monitoring the state of -- and, when necessary, fighting for -- your *liberties* as an American? That's the highest form of patriotism. What doesn't work is substituting the rights of the individual (read: ego) for *any and all* responsibility to other humans -- whether to the state, society, or just folks in your path while you're pushing your cart through the supermarket. It's all about context, folks... and that's something that we can thank Rand Paul for helping to generate. In spades!

Todd Stauffer

May 21 2010

Wtf is Mark? I guess he just wants you to report, him to decide, like Fox News says.

DrumminD21311

May 22 2010

What I don't understand is all the apologists for BP. I mean they polluted the entire gulf coast and saying "i'm sorry" doesn't get it. Actions like that are just bad for business and by being inept and I will include the US government here by their relative inaction. At least with 3 mile island you had a containment plan in place and I don't see any evidence that anybody had a plan for what happens when an oil rig blows up. I don't see this as a partisan issue at all although I've sure it will be made into one, the current mess needs fixing, BP needs to pay for it and I don't care if they have to go bankrupt because I really don't think they will be to pay the entire cost. Whatever systems the nuclear industry has needs to be transferred over because these oil rigs are dangerous and environmental nightmares waiting to happen. If anything, Obama has been light on BP, and this Paul guy can kiss my rear end, what on earth is he thinking in that allowing a foreign company to come in and pollute the entire gulf coast is just a part of doing business?

GLewis

May 22 2010

[quote]In other words, don't confuse uptopian Randian Libertarianism (the stuff that the bookstore clerks all sniff about as if they were accomplished architects themselves) when it puts itself in direct opposition to *actual reality*.[/quote] What bookstores are you patronizing?

Mark Geoffriau

May 23 2010

Ron Paul marked a lot that's why it is not impossible for his son, Rand Paul, not to win the election. The primaries are upon us and one person forecasted not for making it to much is Arlen Specter. The Arlen Specter election results made his challenger content. It was no shock that Arlene Specter would not be that popular after transitioning from Republican to Democratic about a year ago.

JaniceB

May 23 2010

Was liking the discussion of "libertarianism" in this post. While watching Bill Maher the other night he had a guest on that really got me thinking when he said, "Sometimes government intrusion isn't BAD. I'm black. Thank GOD they got involved in the Civil Rights movement". Like, HELLO? I also liked the quote "They keep saying we want our country back. I want our country FORWARD." (I think Rachel Madow has been all over that one on her blog.) I've said it before and I'll say it again. These people long for an "ideal" America that never actually existed. The only thing I can think that they are actually fighting for is the "America" portrayed in commercials in the 1950's. You know, the ones responsible for the drugging of most American housewives because they couldn't stand their lives. Where segregation kept everyone "proper" and we could smoke EVERYWHERE. You know, it really wasn't that great. Women were oppressed. Children were more often abused with no true supportive social services. Mental health issues were ignored and stored in "someone's attic". And black people were told to "get in back", "sit outside", and to use "this restroom". The only people who really had it good were White Men. Thankfully, I know they are in the minority and I believe this is their one final "Grandstand" before they must admit that countries, their populations, and their needs, are dynamic and there is not an ideal system model that is always going to work all of the time. If we do not change, we will fail. That is it. Taking us back to an imagined "ideal" America isn't going to help our current problems one whit. Mainly because the issues we are dealing with now weren't even VALID in the 1950's. Our populations are more diverse. Employment for people with only a high school education doesn't really exist in a way that can pay even a minimum of a living wage, etc....AGH. You know what? I can't even go into all of it because its just a HOT MESS. The Tea Party hides under that motto of "taking our country back" when all they are truly about is racism and hatred. And, if there are any members that don't truly know that, they are ill informed. I really wanted to be more logical about it. But, I just can't. I even have family members who call themselves "Tea Baggers". Guess What? They are all well-educated white men who are doing extremely well financially. Most of them are also homophobic, racist, a$$holes. But, you know, maybe that's just a coincidence.

Lori G

May 24 2010

What bookstores are you patronizing? That was metaphor. My point being that the somewhat childish (and churlish) "idealism" of Randophiles doesn't necessarily play in the real world. It's as good as any ideal, I suppose, and certainly can bring something to the conversation. But Paul is an interesting spokesperson for the movement-gone-amuck.

Todd Stauffer

May 24 2010

Let's have our own tea party, and have an actual tea party with tea and china and teapots, etc., as a civilized alternative to theirs.

DrumminD21311

May 24 2010

We just watched Invictus over the weekend and there's a great line in there where Morgan-Freeman-as-Mandela says something to the effect that the best thing they'd gotten from the British was afternoon tea. It's an intriguing suggestion. We could discuss increased oversight of the oil and gas industry... with crumpets. ;-)

Todd Stauffer

May 24 2010

Lori G, I always enjoy reading your post. I love to listen to the Bill Maher Show. The guest are usually very interesing. I feel lost at the end of the day if I havent heard Rachel Madow. She and her team do unbelieable discovery on issues: If you said it or did it, don't lie. LOL! When I hear statements from the Tea Party foks and others who say, "We want to take our country back" I ask, and give it to whom? Remember this joint belonged to the INDIANS!

justjess

May 24 2010

Here's something else that could be discussed at the Tea Party for the left -- "Crazy Al" Grayson has introduced the War is Making Your Poor Act in Congress that seeks to limit DoD spending by forcing war appropriations to come out of the DoD's annual budget. (Right now Iraq and Afghanistan are funded through supplements.) The savings would be passed as a tax credit, making the first $35,000 of every American's salary tax-free. “The purpose of this bill,” wrote Grayson last week, “is to connect the dots, and to show people in a real and concrete way the cost of these endless wars.” It’s not just the costs of active shooting wars; with hundreds of bases overseas, as far as the defense budget is concerned Americans have been on a permanent wartime footing, to varying degrees, since Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. “War is a permanent feature of our societal landscape,” wrote Grayson, “so much so that no one notices it anymore.” It's got two GOP co-sponsors -- Ron Paul of Crazy Town, Tex., and Walter Jones, from Looneytunes, SC. Still...I'm kinda diggin' that tax free part...

Todd Stauffer

May 24 2010

I don't trust Run Paul or his son, Grand Paul, because I run every time I see Run Paul and grab my gun every time I see Grand Paul. I don't care what labels they pick and choose to brand themselves or to commit subterfuge, because I know the only label that counts is the "R" they're all really hiding behind. The elephant that propels the "R" is so strong that it's challenging to follow the script to keep lying about what you really are. They're all waiting on the right moment to break free and be able to say what they really feel without consequence of fallout, like in the good ole days. The only thing holding them back is their continued desire to fool the public and regain political clout. Many of them thought for sure once Obama got to be POTUS that the fear and outrage would be so great that the masses of their kind would follow them anywhere so long as it was calculated to rid the country of that nigger. Now they're saying hating that nigger may not be enough. We might have to come up with a few policies that advance America. They though for sure they had the solid south and maybe they do. I don't believe any of their old crap about being fiscally responsible, having family values, supporting wars only when necessary and fostering conservative values, except the part about state's rights so they can put the niggers back where they belong. I believe the latter part fully and completely and without any doubts whatsoever! I'm so glad Grand Paul said what he believes and wishes were so about the Civil Rights Act. I wonder how that makes Angela McGlowan, Michael Steele, Bill Marcie and the other Uncle Toms, locally and nationally, feel about the TEA Party? Probably nothing. "Pass the duckies from the left hand side. Pass the duckies from the right hand side." Did y'all hear about Texas's and Arizona's new or proposed textbooks and curriculum, respectively for children. They're trying to whitewash and hide history to a greater level than before. In other words, trying to fool our children into accepting false history. Have republicans gone stone crazy? I guess they haven't heard the song, "I can't make you love me" if you don't want to and the deeds haven't merited it.

Walt

May 24 2010

The concept of "states' rights" terrifies me. I don't want the states to have ANY rights, especially Mississippi. I don't want Haley Barbour and his buddies running my life. Remember what happened the last time Mississippi had rights? Y'all gotta prove you can responsibly exercise those rights before we give them back to you.

DrumminD21311

May 24 2010

Drummin- When did the states lose their rights? When did Mississippi? Did they repeal the 10th Amendment and not tell anybody?

BubbaT

May 24 2010

1861, 1964, 1973...

DrumminD21311

May 25 2010

I've been keeping up with Texas and Arizona with their plan to change their textbooks as it relates to African-Americans. I don't hear the outrage from the otherside. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Arizona is getting rid of "African-American Studies" in their State owned colleges and universities. WHY? Because they think they can. ....and to think that the Pauls (Rand & Son)didn't want the civil Rights Bill to pass or for Affirmative Action to be continued. I think it's time to call THE WOLF, UGLY!

justjess

May 25 2010

Corrections (Run and Son, Rand)

justjess

May 25 2010

I like Green tea!

Tre

May 25 2010